Slovak legislators hold EU Treaty hostage over media law

Michael Hedges January 31, 2008

Center-right political parties are threatening to block Slovak ratification of the EU reform treaty unless Prime Minister Robert Fico withdraws a controversial draft media law. Since taking power in 2006 PM Fico has engaged in a war over media and press reforms. He has consistently criticized the existence of any press criticism.

The Press Act is aimed at print media, ‘the periodical press and news agencies.’ Electronic media in Slovakia is government by the Act on Broadcasting and Re-Transmission. Ruling coalition member Dusan Jarjabek said the Press Act is an attempt to make similar laws on print and electronic media, according to the Slovak Spectator. Jarjabek suggest that language in the Press Act might be ‘fine-tuned.’

Culture Minister Marek Madaric refused to withdraw or alter the draft law that would fine newspapers under ‘right of reply’ provisions allowing any individual mentioned in news articles or editorials to demand a reply within three days without providing facts or substantiation. 

“I don't consider it to be an attack on the media,” said Madaric.

The Slovak Parliament (Wednesday January 30) postponed voting on the EU Treaty until Thursday (January 31) at 1700 CET and a spokesperson said further postponement is possible. PM Fico said he would not be “blackmailed” by critics of the draft media law.

The prospect of yet another new EU Member State enacting laws to punish media and journalists and to encourage the downward spiral of self-censorship has attracted the attention of media watchers.

“There is a potential threat in the wording of this bill, which leaves room for politicians to manipulate the media,” said South East Europe Media Organization (SEEMO) Secretary General Oliver Vujovic in a statement January 23. “This could force the media into self-censorship for fear of bankruptcy. This new law has an impact on editorial independence, and could be used as a means of self-promotion for the politicians.”

Organization for Security and Cooperation Europe (OSCE) High Representative for media rights Miklós Haraszti sent a letter (January 22) to Slovak Foreign Minister Ján Kubic outlining differences between the draft Press Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Culture Minister Marek Madaric, whos portfolio includes media, dismissed the communication and the criticism referring to Haraszti as a ‘not very high commissioner.’  

Standards matter, said Haraszti in an interview with the Slovak Spectator. “For one thing, the terms are completely vague, subjective and absolutely undefined, which alone means that any intervention based on these terms will be arbitrary. Second, in no democracy can the executive have that power, because it belongs to the judicial branch, and only in criminal cases. The only reference to the judiciary in this draft law is in the case of appeals, and even there it is only an administrative function - the courts will not have the power to look into the matter, only whether the formalities were violated or not. That gives the executive an intrusive power that is excessive and totally unusual in a democracy. This isn't a matter of politics, but of standards.”

It’s far from unusual, in recent months, for political leaders in the States joining the European Union since 2004 to backtrack on reform legislation, particularly media and press laws. Slovakia is far from alone.

Slovenia revised its law on public broadcasting in 2005, increasing political involvement in administrative councils. In 2006, Slovenia strengthened ‘right of reply’ provisions in its media law, similar in effect to the new draft Slovak law. Poland also strengthened political authority over public broadcasting and imposed strict limits on foreign ownership of private sector media.

Slovak courts have used right of reply provisions in the broadcasting law to discourage critical media coverage. Slovak courts sanctioned private radio broadcaster Radio Twist for broadcasting a surreptitiously recorded embarrassing telephone conversation between two government officials. The radio station was supplied the recording by a third party. The courts imposed a penalty based on “tarnishing the reputation and dignity” of one politician. 

The station appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and the current Slovak government chose to defend their courts’ earlier position. Ten years later (December 2006) the high court concluded that sanctions applied by Slovak courts on Radio Twist violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The high court further observed that “there was no indication that the journalists of Radio Twist acted in bad faith or that they pursued any objective other than reporting on matters which they felt obliged to make available to the public.”

“If the parliament passed this law as a fait accompli,” said OSCE’s Haraszti, “it would mean that Slovakia is violating its OSCE commitments, and I believe that anything that was done on the basis of these two articles would stumble upon the European Court of Human Rights.”

“The Strasbourg Court of Human Rights makes a very clear distinction between opinions and facts.”

A year ago the Slovak Parliament passed an amendment to the Broadcasting and Re-Transmission Act restricting the volume level of television ads.